Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Author Topic: "Republicans deserved to lose"  (Read 13036 times)

Paddy

  • Guest
"Republicans deserved to lose"
« on: September 14, 2007, 03:59:39 PM »

I agree.  They 'traded principle for power and ended up with neither"  undecided

Greenspan Book
Criticizes Bush
And Republicans
'They Deserved to Lose';
Former Fed Chief Defends
Pre-Bubble Rate Cuts
By GREG IP and EMILY STEEL
September 15, 2007

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.

The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street Journal bought a copy at a bookstore in the New York area.

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Many economists say the Fed, by cutting short-term interest rates to 1% in mid-2003 and keeping them there for a year, helped foster a housing bubble that is now bursting. In his book, which was largely written before much of the recent turmoil in credit markets, Mr. Greenspan defends the policy. "We wanted to shut down the possibility of corrosive deflation," he writes. "We were willing to chance that by cutting rates we might foster a bubble, an inflationary boom of some sort, which we would subsequently have to address....It was a decision done right."

He attributes the housing boom to the end of communism, which he says unleashed hundreds of millions of workers on global markets, putting downward pressure on wages and prices, and thus on long-term interest rates.

Mr. Greenspan retired in early 2006 after 18 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He had served under six presidents as either Fed chairman or adviser. He now runs a private consulting company; his only formal public role is adviser to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Penguin paid an advance of more than $8 million last year for Mr. Greenspan's book, according to people familiar with the matter. Promotion for the book includes appearances by Mr. Greenspan on CBS's "60 Minutes," NBC's "Today" and CNBC, interviews with foreign and U.S. media, book signings and speaking engagements. The book's official release comes a day before the most-watched Fed meeting of the year. On Tuesday, Mr. Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, must decide whether to cut interest rates to cushion the economy from the reversal of the housing boom that began under Mr. Greenspan's watch.

His book is half memoir and half treatise on the state of the world and its future. While much of the ground has been covered either in his own previous public remarks or in other books, Mr. Greenspan sheds new light on many policy decisions, offers often-trenchant observations of the presidents he has known and makes some surprising economic forecasts, unmuffled by the often opaque and complex phraseology he used as Fed chairman. Critics, however, may seize on his continued defense of decisions they say led to first a stock bubble and then a housing bubble, and on some assertions that differ from the historical record.

Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there's something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job. Mr. Ford, he writes, "was as close to normal as you get in a president, but he was never elected." The Watergate tapes, he says, show Richard Nixon as "an extremely smart man who is sadly paranoid, misanthropic and cynical." He recalls telling someone who had accused Nixon of anti-Semitism that he "wasn't exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don't know anybody he was pro."

Ronald Reagan's ability to instantly tap one-liners and anecdotes in support of a particular policy represented an "odd form of intelligence." He describes Bill Clinton as "a fellow information hound" with "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth" whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky "made me feel disappointed and sad."

Mr. Greenspan makes no mention of his successor as Fed chairman, Mr. Bernanke, other than in a caption accompanying a picture: "I was very comfortable leaving the post in the hands of such an experienced successor," it reads.

He devotes chapters to each of the major economic challenges facing the U.S. and the world. On energy, he recommends more use of nuclear power, and he predicts efforts to reduce global warming with carbon caps or taxes will fail. Rising income inequality could undo "the cultural ties that bind our society" and even lead to "large-scale violence." The remedy, he says, is not higher taxes on the rich but improved education, which can be helped by paying math teachers more.

Mr. Greenspan returns repeatedly to the far-reaching importance of communism's collapse. He says it discredited central planning throughout the world and inspired China and later India to throw off socialist policies. He recalls meeting a former manager of a produce distribution center in China who says he once had to labor to allocate produce according to government edict; now the allocations are made by auction. "Now I don't have to get up at four a.m.," he quotes the manager as saying. "I can sleep in and let the market do my job for me." Mr. Greenspan recalls his amazement when an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin asks him to discuss Ayn Rand, the libertarian philosopher with whom Mr. Greenspan had been friends.

In coming years, as the globalization process winds down, he predicts inflation will become harder to contain. Recent increases in the price of imports from China and a rise in long-term interest rates suggest "the turn may be upon us sooner rather than later."

Left alone, he said, the Fed's policy-making body, the Federal Open Market Committee, can keep inflation between 1% and 2%, but that could require forcing interest rates to double-digits, a level "not seen since the days of Paul Volcker," his predecessor as Fed chairman. "I fear that my successors on the FOMC, as they strive to maintain price stability in the coming quarter century, will run into populist resistance from Congress, if not from the White House," he writes.

If the Fed succumbs to that pressure, inflation could rise from a little over 2% at present to an average of 4% to 5% by the year 2030, he writes. Ten-year Treasury yields, now below 5%, will rise to "at least 8%" with the potential to go "significantly higher for brief periods." This, he says, will lead to stagnant returns on stocks and bonds and much smaller gains in housing prices.

Mr. Greenspan won plaudits for achieving low inflation and unemployment with just two mild recessions during his tenure at the Fed. But more recently his record has taken some knocks. Some critics fault him for not doing more to restrain the stock bubble of the 1990s, and for responding to its eventual bursting with such low interest rates that housing prices subsequently soared.

Mr. Greenspan writes that in early 1997, he told his colleagues the Fed should raise interest rates as a "preemptive" move against a stock-market bubble. But transcripts of Fed meetings from that period do not support his book's version of events: They show Mr. Greenspan argued for a rate increase principally because of inflation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

Warren

  • Guest
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2007, 04:06:42 PM »

Lets remember Frist adding that anti-gaming bill to the Ports bill just two weeks beofre the election. That thing pissed off a lot of online poker players.

There are millions of Americans who play poker online and all of them are of voting age and he comes along and says "We are going to make it harder on you to fund your accounts."  It showed just how tactically clueless the Rs were and how little they actually care about the little guy. I think there was a huge shift of votes just on that issue.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,036
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2007, 04:26:26 PM »

Quote
. . . he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake."
I think out-of-control government spending was THE #1 MISTAKE of the GOP. They completely abandoned their principles of small government and went on a mad orgy of spending that would embarass a drunken sailor hitting a bordello after a year at sea. And in their sheer, infuriating, arrogance they turned their backs on their core constituency, with an attitude of "Well, who the heck else are they going to vote for?"

In their hubris, they acted as if they were entitled to our votes. Many still act that way.

And the Democrats won both the House and the Senate.

And the GOP still doesn't get it. Or doesn't want to.

Perhaps that's why Ann Coulter has referred to the GOP as "The Stupid Party."
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Those who work for a living are being BURIED by those who vote for a living.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

lee n. field

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,187
  • tinpot megalomaniac, Paulbot, hardware goon
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2007, 05:30:00 PM »

Quote
Perhaps that's why Ann Coulter has referred to the GOP as "The Stupid Party."

As contrasted with "the Evil Party".  One guess as to who that is.
In thy presence is fulness of joy.
At thy right hand pleasures for evermore.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2007, 06:43:44 PM »

R should be the party of Not Meddling.

They really seem to have forgotten that...

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,358
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2007, 08:20:15 PM »

That last time we had a "not meddling" party was probably before WWI.  You might count whoever decided we didn't need to join the league of nations also.  Since then, no such animal.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Antibubba

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,836
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2007, 10:07:39 PM »

Quote
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican,"

He can call himself anything he wants, but anyone who can use the power of government to direct the economy and affect untold billions of dollars and lives can hardly be called a "libertarian".

This should not be construed as criticism of the job he did.
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,936
  • Vashneesht
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2007, 10:28:22 PM »

Quote
Perhaps that's why Ann Coulter has referred to the GOP as "The Stupid Party."

As contrasted with "the Evil Party".  One guess as to who that is.

A plague upon both their houses; a pox on them all.

Would that the Gods favor us such...

<grumble>  angry
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2007, 10:39:19 PM »

Quote
From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there's something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job.

I've often thought the same thing. Perhaps that's why I tend to be so unenthusiastic about national politics; they're all just actor pretending to be whatever they think we want.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2007, 03:48:50 AM »

Oh, those wascally Wepublicwats and Democans!
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2007, 08:17:19 AM »

Quote
I think out-of-control government spending was THE #1 MISTAKE of the GOP. They completely abandoned their principles of small government and went on a mad orgy of spending that would embarass a drunken sailor hitting a bordello after a year at sea. And in their sheer, infuriating, arrogance they turned their backs on their core constituency, with an attitude of "Well, who the heck else are they going to vote for?"

During the 2004 election, I had an opportunity to speak with the chairman of the Republican Party.  I complained about big spending, big government, liberty snatching Bush.  He told me "So what are ya gonna do, vote for Kerry?  You don't have anywhere else to go".  Chucklehead.  I told him "People who don't have anywhere to go just stay home". 

Finch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Fading Freedoms
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2007, 09:49:12 AM »

Not to mention all the Repubs are running on a Pro-War stance (well...almost all Wink ). I seriously believe that nobody running on a Pro-War stance will get elected.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul

Bigjake

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,024
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2007, 06:16:45 PM »

you're right fitch,  lets just surrender. :puke:

does anyone else pine for the days when wars were over when the enemy waved a white flag?

Barbara

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 398
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2007, 05:15:18 AM »

Other than WW2, when has that happened in the last century or so?

Hutch

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,210
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2007, 06:18:32 AM »

Quote
Quote
Perhaps that's why Ann Coulter has referred to the GOP as "The Stupid Party."

As contrasted with "the Evil Party".  One guess as to who that is.
 
 
Sometimes they get together and pass legislation that is both evil AND stupid.  That's called bipartisanship  <wish I could claim that as an original thought>
"My limited experience does not permit me to appreciate the unquestionable wisdom of your decision"

Seems like every day, I'm forced to add to the list of people who can just kiss my hairy ass.

Finch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Fading Freedoms
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2007, 09:48:50 PM »

you're right fitch,  lets just surrender. :puke:

does anyone else pine for the days when wars were over when the enemy waved a white flag?

So we should ignore the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation on that basis of something that turned out to be a complete lie? And it wouldn't be surrender. According to Herr Bush, we went in to topple Saddam ( I think that was the third excuse he used). We did that, let's go.

And as for pining, I "pine" for the days when we respect the constitution and return to minding our own business.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul

Perd Hapley

  • Radicalized since 1776 - beep/bop/boop
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56,794
  • I just realized I am not holding my microphone
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2007, 07:46:53 AM »

Not to mention all the Repubs are running on a Pro-War stance (well...almost all Wink ). I seriously believe that nobody running on a Pro-War stance will get elected.


I'm sorry, but you're fooling yourself. 
This member used to have another name, and the name that this member used to have was fistful.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 35,182
  • I Am Inimical
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2007, 07:47:53 AM »

So, then, what Republicans are running on a pro-war stance, and which of them will be elected?

Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2007, 08:11:08 AM »

Its no longer the Republican Party of Ronald Regan.
Viva La Regan!
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

Finch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Fading Freedoms
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2007, 10:07:18 PM »

I'm sorry, but you're fooling yourself. 

Please....elaborate.....

Because in my eyes, with a majority of Americans wanting us out of Iraq within a year, why would they vote for someone who not only wants to continue the war, but some want to expand it.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2007, 09:50:03 AM »

Finch:

You make several assumptions....but let us assume they are all valid.

The Iraq War is one among many issues.  THAT is one reason why pro-war politicians will will(re)election.

It is not too complicated.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Finch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Fading Freedoms
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2007, 04:47:42 PM »

Finch:

You make several assumptions....but let us assume they are all valid.

The Iraq War is one among many issues.  THAT is one reason why pro-war politicians will will(re)election.

It is not too complicated.

Huh?
Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2007, 03:24:37 AM »

Activists are focused on one issue.

Citizens have many issues on their plate.  Most are not one-issue voters.

To take the dinner plate analogy & run with it, Iraq at it most influential was a big ol' pork chop.  Significant & meaty, but not the totality of dinner.  The taters & gravy, asparagus, baking powder biscuits, and gooseberry pie finish it out and make the meal.  A meal can still be acceptable if the entree is not to your liking, as ong as the other dishes are tasty.

jfruser's Dinner/Issue Analogy:
Pork Chop ~ Iraq/WOT
Taters & Gravy ~ Economy
Asparagus ~ Culture/Values
Biscuits ~ Crime
Gooseberry Pie ~ RKBA/Liberty
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

thebaldguy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2007, 03:43:17 PM »

Today's Republicans are not conservatives, even though they call themselves that. They are actually right wing authoritarians in my opinion. They have expanded government, not conserved it. It is now bigger and more expensive than ever, and has expanded its power over citizens.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,358
Re: "Republicans deserved to lose"
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2007, 05:46:50 PM »

Other than WW2, when has that happened in the last century or so?
It didn't really happen in WWII either.  WWI maybe. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge